Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Banzai042
3) Sander is very likely not just some angry little freak who is mad at ATI and posting known false benchmarks, because this is the same as comitting business suicide.
I'll say it again. Sander excercised very poor judgement in posting these unverifiable benchmarks from some anonymous source who is clearly violating ATI's NDA. It seems likely that he has a bit of an inflated ego and his judgement was clouded by his bitterness at being snubbed by ATI. Let's take a look at his supposed email to ATI:
> From: Sander Sassen - Hardware Analysis
> [mailto:ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2005 09:39
> To: Andrzej Bania
> Subject: Re: Editors Day
>
> So you're telling me I'm not invited is that it? I feel an ATI column
> coming
> up, lets see if we can drop the stock price shall we?
>
> Sander Sassen
> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com <http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/>
Source
He really doesn't seem like a very standup guy to me so I'm not sure why anyone is defending him.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Everyone aside from Duvie is missing this:
It is just like in the courts, he is innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason for or against the belief that Sander faked those benches except a post in a forum which also cannot be verified.
We can neither accuse Sander or Let him off the hook yet, neither side has sufficient evidence.
Concluding that since he broke NDA (or is associated with someone that did) is not accurate in the least. If i were to talk to someone who did drugs, does that automatically mean that i did them...Nope.
There is not enough evidence to go either way on this argument. Im not saying that ATI should release benches, but we simply have to wait. It may be hard for us, but think if the benches are different, think how hard it must be for ATI to hold back something they know that is way better than posted.
Everything will straighten out in time.
-Kevin
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Banzai042
3) Sander is very likely not just some angry little freak who is mad at ATI and posting known false benchmarks, because this is the same as comitting business suicide.
I'll say it again. Sander excercised very poor judgement in posting these unverifiable benchmarks from some anonymous source who is clearly violating ATI's NDA. It seems likely that he has a bit of an inflated ego and his judgement was clouded by his bitterness at being snubbed by ATI. Let's take a look at his supposed email to ATI:
> From: Sander Sassen - Hardware Analysis
> [mailto:ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2005 09:39
> To: Andrzej Bania
> Subject: Re: Editors Day
>
> So you're telling me I'm not invited is that it? I feel an ATI column
> coming
> up, lets see if we can drop the stock price shall we?
>
> Sander Sassen
> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com <http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/>
Source
He really doesn't seem like a very standup guy to me so I'm not sure why anyone is defending him.
Originally posted by: Banzai042
It is entirely possible that they are not reprisentative of the R520 card and that Sander was simply so eager to believe that they are accurate that he posted them without truly questioning the likelyhood that they are not accurate.
Originally posted by: Creig
And, of course, certain people here have latched onto this "benchmark" and are spreading it as gospel.
I think I'll just wait for actual post-launch reviews before I declare the R520 a success or failure.
No reason to be upset, just reason to doubt.Originally posted by: crazydingo
Its not a matter of your likes or anybody elses'. Sander accused all those who were invited (including Anandtech) as being biased or were sold out to ATI. There in lies the reason to be upset with Sander.
Convenient.Originally posted by: crazydingo
Sander basically disowned all the numbers by claiming all the testing was done by some one else and in the process he asked people to take these numbers with a grain of salt. From this situation, I dont think Sander has much to lose like you seem to suggest. Come day when the NDA expires, Sander will point all the blame to his "partner".
He should do what other "snubbed" sites do. Just go out and buy the dang thing instead of looking for vendor handouts. Even the revered Tom's Hardware stated that they felt they were unable to get a feel of the whole "user experience" from vendor handouts (regarding recent articles on gaming rigs).Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Sander had done some previous articles on ATI's crossfire and also on ATI's financial situation and didn't have good things to say about either. ATI did not appreciate this and it would seem that they told Sander to F-off in a very PC way when he wanted in on the R520 tech day. So, Sander is not a hurt psycho in my eyes. He is a reviewer that suffered some snubbing from ATI because of his xfire review. ATI is dirty here. You can't snub somebody for telling their story and experiences, well, you can, but expect repercussions.
As unique as that other mod? You know, the one that was banned? DF with the dead GF?Originally posted by: crazydingo
RE: Duvie
You will really make a "unique" mod.
LOLOriginally posted by: apoppin
and you have the benchmarks to prove it.Originally posted by: 5150Joker
If the glove don't fit, you MUST acquit! You guys should vote for me as mod, I'm fair and balanced like Fox News. Fo sho!
Yep. Didn't know his site existed before this, and likely to forget it after this bruhaha blows over.Originally posted by: Greenman
The relevant point is that Sanders got his feelings hurt and responded by trying to damage ATI. He presents himself as a journalist, he claims to be a no holds bared writer of the truth. He then goes on to explain that he did this to punish ATI for excluding him from their tech day. Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound like something a professional would do?
Has anyone ever heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics?" You can take totally true benchmark numbers and change the outcome of the conclusion without explicitly falsifying numbers. Perhaps being a bit more selective in which numbers to publish and leaving out others, taking things out of context and perhaps emphasizing certain results... every single benchmark published could be indeed true but come to a different conclusion than someone else doing the review.Originally posted by: munky
I dont think he'd falsify the results to make Ati look bad, because if the real benches are completely opposite, he'd be the laughingstock of pretty much everyone. His numbers could still be wrong, but I dont think he would intentionally make the x1800 look bad in light of the possible consequences.
It doesn't make sense for it to be endorsed by a whole company, but what if one employee...Originally posted by: M0RPH
what ATI partner who has these cards and has obviously signed an NDA would put their status with ATI at risk? Who in their right mind would jeopardize their whole business by breaking NDA and giving benchmarks to some guy to publish on a website weeks before the NDA is to be lifted? It just doesn't make much sense.
WTF? I thought this forum was "RIAA FANS?"Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
It is just like in the courts, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by: M0RPH
A letter that he wrote to Tom of tomshardwareguide.com some years ago.
Quite frankly, I have had no problem whatsoever with the 1.13GHz Pentium III...
just finished the 10th redundant SYSMark 2000 run on a i440BX
Hope you take this to hart this time
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
Originally posted by: apoppin
you keep answering yourself
Q: why is the burden of proof on sanders?
A: he came out with a "claim"
Q: what 'reasonable doubt'?
A: 1. it is UNverifyable
2. it has no known author or stated method of testing
3. no one else supports his [single] claim of an errant "ati board partner"
Q: he said what he said, explained how he obtained the inf
A: Doesn't matter it is UNVERIFYABLE and we're back again to the burden of proof being on him.
actually i don't keep answering myself. you make excuses and go around in circles....
"the sky is blue"
"no it's not"
"sure it is"
"no it's not"
"prove it"
"i don't have to..."
it's a "he said", "she said" and to argue it is pointless. even moreso given the argument will be resolved by itself in a few weeks.
he provided information, which is not "unreasonable". could they be off? certainly. are they outside the realm of possibility? nope. and there is not word to the contrary. enuff said.
as far as your reply to munky.. again it's silly. he certainly does face some consequences. aside from him coming off as a complete idiot and his site losing any credibility he may have had.. this would open him up to slander. doesn't matter whether he got the info from someone else or not. he, being the messenger, would certainly be held accountable by at least the public, if not those involved.